Email this article to a friend

Musk isn’t stupid, and probably has no illusions about Tillerson and how he’ll use his post: to open up new markets for the only industry he’s ever worked for.

You might think Elon Musk is good because he runs companies that build solar panels and electric cars. He is not.

“This may sound surprising coming from me,” the SolarCity and Tesla head tweeted yesterday, “but … Rex Tillerson has the potential to be an excellent Secretary of State.”

No, Elon, it’s not surprising. In mid-December, Musk—alongside Uber CEO Travis Kalachnik—joined Donald Trump’s economic advisory team, so the fact that he’s supporting the president’s nominee to become the country’s top diplomat should surprise precisely no one.

Tillerson and Musk also have similar visions for how to solve (or, rather, not solve) the climate crisis. As Musk went on to explain via Twitter, he and Tillerson agree that a revenue-neutral carbon tax should be the keystone of any climate plan.

In voicing his support for a long-time oil executive and known funder of climate denial to become Secretary of State, he also showed why a revenue-neutral carbon tax is a horrible policy for bringing down emissions.

Faith in a revenue-neutral carbon tax rests on a belief that markets are efficient. That is, if you tax so-called “negative externalities” (pollution) enough, rational firms will simply weed them out of their business model. As the costs of coal, oil and gas rise, consumers and market forces will prioritize accordingly, and buy less dirty fuels. Alternative-energy companies like Tesla and SolarCity will prosper, and fossil-fuel companies like ExxonMobil will suffer—theoretically—unless they transition rapidly over to low-carbon fuels. By the logic of market-based approaches to the climate crisis, then, Elon Musk’s profits and the planet’s fortunes should be one and the same, while fossil fuel company’s fortunes should decline in proportion.

Because it doesn’t actually pose a threat to Exxon or the rest of the fossil fuel industry. Exxon has factored a carbon tax into its long-term projections since 2007.

Any reasonable climate policy needs to threaten ExxonMobil’s profits. It might give a boost to Tesla and SolarCity along the way, but the rising tide that brings down emissions will not lift all boats—most especially not the fossil fuel industry’s. As a refresher, some 70 percent known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground to avert truly catastrophic levels of warming.

Musk isn’t stupid, and probably has no illusions about Tillerson and how he’ll use his post: to open up new markets for the only industry he’s ever worked for. And yet he sees no contradiction between his ability to sell clean energy and Tillerson’s unyielding drive and potentially unprecedented power to sell and promote dirty energy. That's Elon Musk acknowledging (however implicitly) that revenue-neutral carbon taxes don’t work, and that he’s perfectly happy with a scenario under which he and Tillerson’s former colleagues can get rich at the same time.

You can't paraphrase in a quote"". Though I could have written that better. If you were to cut fossil fuels through legislative action before we are ready, it would drastically harm the economy and increase poverty. So legislatively cutting off fossil fuels in the Unites States, would not only increase poverty locally, but would lead to a ripple effect across the globe. This in turn, would lead to an increase in fossil fuels and the carbon footprint.

Posted by Nick Cerveny on 2017-01-29 00:15:11

"If you stop consumption of fossil fuels you would increase the planet's carbon footprint"

Apparently you don't know what "carbon footprint" means. Carbon footprint is "the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds emitted due to the consumption of fossil fuels."

Elon, you surprised me with this. I must admit. I have supported your efforts and spoken highly of your employees, since I have worked with some of them, and find them to be very professional and attentive to details - very important in the data they manage. This should not come as a real surprise, knowing that you are buddies with other certain corporate elites who've supported Romney, have run for political offices themselves, and are not giving their employees decent raises at all. I should have figured you would come to this kind of decision. You've decided to become a GOP handmaiden. Quite disgusting decisions, Elon. Shame on your and your corporate CEO buddies who do not believe in reinvesting in their own employees who've made billions for them and their corporate boards of directors. BILLIONS! But no decent pay increases for those working hard to keep the United States alive with a working economy. The Corporate CEO's would prefer to scoop up other companies, spend millions on that kind of expense, but leave their employees skimming by with 1% raises that won't even cover the costs of increased electricity bills or increases in medical costs they endure year after year. You're all a bunch of pond scum.

Posted by NJHope on 2017-01-27 23:01:13

It's not so simple. No one with any education wants to use coal anymore, everyone goes green, as they should. And even those who don't have cheaper options than buying US coal - so it's simply an industry that's gone the way of the dodo, and a good riddance. Open the mines again, and what will happen? No one will buy anything from them, or they will be paid so little that sweatshops in Indonesia will look good in order to keep the prices low enough for anyone to care. It's like crying how no one uses the Gutenberg press anymore - well, true, so they better go and learn how to use a computer instead, or remain unemployed and fall for the orange pig's idiotic promises.

And that's without even going into how the orange turd and his lap dogs have absolutely no intention to keep the markets doing anything that doesn't benefit their 1%-er breed ALONE.

Posted by G Mar on 2017-01-27 17:00:23

At least Tillerson might not insist on an unnecessary cold or hot war with Russia like Hillary, but we need a carbon tax to finance $80 billion/year energy efficiency, not a revenue neutral tax.

Posted by bobmaginnis on 2017-01-27 05:39:55

Kind of agree with you G Mar, "open markets" have led to bankruptcies by major US coal companies in the past few years but the carbon apologists in Congress and the White House want to keep propping them up.

Posted by Jeff P on 2017-01-26 21:27:01

WTF Elon

Posted by Jeff P on 2017-01-26 21:22:58

Yeah, I'm sure the guy of whom two of his three business are built around non-fossil-fuel transportation and energy production really wants to help the fossil fuel industry. This is lazy and sloppy.

Besides, so what if Exxon factored in a carbon tax? They can only factor it in for a certain level, and you can set a carbon tax as high as you like.

Posted by TheBrett on 2017-01-26 10:52:14

Boo-hoo, intolerance, waa waa. Yeah, your orange Fuehrer and his lap dog Tillerson are all about open markets and working with everyone :D :D :D

Posted by G Mar on 2017-01-25 23:07:23

This article is the textbook definition of intolerance. It is sad that I found it off a google news feed. This is not news. If you had an ounce of intuition, you might realize that in order to advance a renewable energy revolution, it requires open markets and working with everyone. In fact, if you were to stop the consumption of the fossil fuels today by legislative action, you would actually increase the carbon footprint of the planet. Its a shame you've been given the opportunity to write, and this article was the product.